- Residents fear displacement, loss of farmland, unresolved land claims
- Authorities cite irrigation benefits, drinking water supply, jobs, regional infrastructure gains
- EIA flags habitat loss, archaeological risks, possible Human-Elephant Conflict
- Residents claim poor communication, language barriers in dealings with authorities
- ITAK MPs allege Mahaweli programmes’ benefits have long bypassed Tamil communities
- Govt. says public agitations will be addressed via consultation before implementation
For decades, families living along the fragile borderlands of Mullaitivu and Vavuniya have known little but upheaval, war, displacement, enforced disappearances, lost deeds, abandoned homes, and the long struggle to begin again.
Many started rebuilding their lives after 2009 through farming, fishing, and cattle rearing, believing that peace had at last brought a chance at permanence.
Today, however, as the Government moves to revive the Kivul Oya Reservoir Project as a major development initiative, many residents allege they are once again confronted with the fear of losing land, livelihoods, and the little stability they fought to reclaim.
For communities in the area — the vast majority of whom are Tamil — the dispute is not viewed as a conventional argument over development. It is filtered through decades of war, repeated displacement, contested land claims, and unresolved trauma.
In villages where memories of displacements remain fresh, State-led land and irrigation projects are often received with suspicion, particularly when consultation and communication is seen as inadequate.
Kivul Oya Reservoir Project
The proposed Kivul Oya Reservoir Project traces its origins to the Mahaweli ‘L’ Zone development plan introduced during the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration as a post-war irrigation and regional development scheme for the Northern Province.
Cabinet first approved the project in September 2011. It was presented as a solution to chronic water shortages and rural poverty in the Vavuniya and Mullaitivu Districts, with plans to improve cultivation during both Yala and Maha seasons.
As technical planning progressed, the focus shifted to environmental and social assessments, which triggered the first organised wave of opposition. Between 2019 and 2020, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was finalised.
However, advocacy groups including the Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ) raised concerns in May 2020 that the EIA had not been made available in Sinhala or Tamil, effectively excluding many local rural communities from the consultation process.
The project later stalled amid the economic crisis and growing public opposition. By the end of 2023, it had been temporarily suspended. However, on 19 January this year, Cabinet approved Rs. 23,456 million for its recommencement, citing urgent drinking water needs.
That decision triggered protests in parts of Mullaitivu and Vavuniya, prompting discussions between Minister of Agriculture K.D. Lalkantha and Northern Province MPs in February, during which assurances were given that the project would proceed only with local consent.
According to project documents seen by The Sunday Morning, the scheme proposes a dam across the Kivul Oya, a tributary of the Ma Oya, under the Mahaweli Development Authority’s System L programme.
Authorities say that it will provide irrigation to new and existing farmland, supply drinking water, create jobs during construction, and improve regional infrastructure, while benefitting approximately 6,000 farming families.
Key objectives include providing irrigation for around 1,700 hectares of new agricultural lands while improving cultivation potential in a further 700 hectares of existing lands. Authorities have also stated that the project is expected to supply safe drinking water to approximately 50,000 people.
Project planners have highlighted broader socio-economic benefits, including the improvement of roads, health, and education facilities, alongside the creation of an estimated 2,000 jobs during the construction phase.
Additionally, the reservoir is expected to support dairy farming and inland fisheries. Under current plans, the reservoir will cover approximately 1,589 hectares at full supply level, with a storage capacity of 53.9 million cubic metres.
The main earthen dam is expected to stretch 4.41 kilometres in length with a maximum height of 18.9 metres. The conveyance system is to include a 12.9 km main canal from the left bank and a feeder canal of 11.06 km to augment several existing minor tanks, including Nika Wewa and Ehatugas Wewa.
The Mahaweli Authority is the project proponent, with the total estimated cost placed at Rs. 7,062 million. This includes Rs. 6,230 million for irrigation infrastructure and Rs. 832 million for environmental mitigation.
Yet on the ground, many residents say the promised benefits are overshadowed by what they stand to lose.
Agitations by residents
When The Sunday Morning visited several villages in Mullaitivu and Vavuniya in April, communities linked to the proposed project area spoke of their fear, anger, and uncertainty over land, heritage, and survival.
In Kokkuthoduvai North, inside the modest Koddaikerny Pillaiyar Kovil, Kokkuthoduvai North Farmers’ Union Secretary S. Sathasivam (62) sat cross-legged on the floor and described the spiritual significance of the temple and the land around it.
“This is an old kovil. People have worshipped here for generations. There are similar kovils in Kumanamunai and Thennamaravadi. These three Pillaiyar kovils are located along a single line,” he said.
“Our ancestors invited the deities and performed rituals here for generations. Every November, we celebrate festivals here for 21 consecutive days, bringing the whole village together. There is also a belief that whenever someone tries to alter or expand this kovil, something happens suddenly to stop it. That is why it has remained simple for generations. These lands and this kovil will be drowned if the Kivul Oya project begins.”
Residents in the area allege that lands historically used by temples and families are increasingly being claimed by State institutions, particularly the Departments of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) and Forest Conservation. They say that paddy fields attached to temples and privately held lands are being reclassified, preventing cultivation, grazing, and traditional livelihoods.
Another resident, Sivakuru (60), said a separate salt pan project had deepened anxieties by threatening the lagoon that sustained Tamil, Muslim, and Sinhala fishing communities. “If this project moves forward, our livelihoods will be completely destroyed. We depend on agriculture, fishing, and cattle farming. Now even the paddy fields that belonged to the temples are being handed over to the Wildlife Department,” he said.
Several villagers said they possessed old deeds and survey plans dating back decades, while others said original documents had been lost during wartime displacement, leaving them vulnerable when attempting to prove ownership today.
“The law is being completely broken. This was not originally forest land. We have plans and deeds given during the British period. We even have survey plans, yet they refuse to recognise our ownership,” one resident charged.
Kokkuthoduvai North Farmers’ Union President Mayuran stressed that the grievances were directed at the State rather than any ethnic community. “We have no problem with our Sinhala brothers. They are not the ones coming to take our land or our food. It is the Government that is bringing people from far away and giving our property to them. This is a problem created by the State, not the people,” he said.
Residents further said that they had sought redress through letters to the President, appeals to the Irrigation Ministry, and representations to local development committees. However, they alleged that officials had either denied knowledge of the issues or failed to provide clear answers.
“They do not talk to us. No one said anything about resettlement or compensation either. They do whatever they want without any discussion with the people who actually live here. We are only asking for what is ours,” Thillainathan, a farmer, said.
New uncertainty follows displacement
In nearby Kokkuthoduvai Central, a group of women who requested anonymity spoke quietly but firmly about the steady erosion of ancestral land and their disappointment in returning home after years of war-time displacement since 1983 only to find new uncertainty.
They said that before displacement they had cultivated paddy and other agricultural lands, but many plots had since been occupied or reassigned.
“We had lands for paddy and other agriculture, but after we were displaced, those lands were completely given to Sinhala people,” one woman said. “When we went to our lands to farm, conflict arose. They would not let us in, saying it is their land now and that they have documents to prove it.”
According to them, some lands had been gazetted under the Mahaweli Authority after 1984, during a period when many original residents had fled due to the war.
They also raised concerns over a private saltern under construction, alleging that between 100 and 200 acres of paddy land had been taken over and that fishing activity could be disrupted once operations began. During the visit, The Sunday Morning observed the saltern under construction, though operations had not commenced yet.
“This saltern is being built on paddy land. Once it starts, it will become difficult for us to even engage in fishing activities. It will become a barrier for us,” another woman from the community said.
Several families said they had spent years pursuing legal action over land, paying substantial costs while cases dragged on. They said the economic strain had made it harder to feed households and educate children.
Beyond the immediate hardship, some feared unresolved land disputes would become an inheritance passed on to the next generation.
“This question of our lands being occupied and then lost will pass on to the next generation. How can we live then? What will happen? Will there be another war?” one woman asked. “The war was supposed to be over, but for us, this is not over.”
Further inland, in Vedivaithakallu in Vavuniya North near the proposed starting point of the project in Semamadu, farmers said around 18 tanks in the Nedunkerny North Divisional Secretariat area could be lost or absorbed into the scheme, together with surrounding agricultural and residential lands.
Unlike in Kokkuthoduvai, some residents there said they still held permits and deeds for their lands, but that had done little to ease fears. “About 1,800 acres belonging to Tamil people in the area will be lost due to this project,” Sivalingam Mohanathas said.
Speaking while between the irrigation tanks Iraman Kulam and Periyakattu Kulam in Maruthoddai, he said residents were not opposed to development, but wanted fairness, consultation, and equal treatment. “We are against the Kivul Oya project,” he said, alleging that “two different treatments are being given to two different ethnicities”. He also claimed that authorities were “not ready to talk to us”.
Sellaiya Mahendran, a third-generation farmer managing 20 acres, said many feared they would not receive a fair solution if land was acquired. “We do not know what is happening because no official is informing us properly,” he said.
Representing affected farmers, Kosalai Balasubramanian (41) said the community wanted equal treatment and protection for livelihoods. “No injustice should happen to any farmer,” she said.
Language barriers are also a major issue surrounding the Kivul Oya project. When Tamil people make written complaints, they often receive responses in Sinhala. In one instance, a letter sent to the Presidential Secretariat this year in Tamil was acknowledged in Sinhala, Balasubramanian said.
Rehabilitation rather than new reservoir
According to the farmers, this region is one of the main contributors to rice production in the Northern Province, with red nadu being widely cultivated alongside white nadu, keeri samba, and samba.
They stressed that the area’s existing irrigation network was already productive and dependable, noting that even smaller village tanks currently held enough water to support cultivation during both Yala and Maha seasons, adding that several of these tanks rarely ran dry.
Rather than a new reservoir, they proposed rehabilitating the region’s existing irrigation network. Mahendran said that if authorities renovated tanks already in use “instead of taking people’s lands again and again,” the region could prosper further.
Mohanathas echoed the view, saying the area could increase rice production and support the country without destructive new schemes. “We are not against development or Sinhala people as some try to portray, but we need to be able to live freely and carry out our agricultural industry,” he said.
In Olu Madu, Vavuniya, 80-year-old Mainamuttu Subalasingam’s story reflected the repeated upheaval described across the region. Originally from Vadamarachchi, he said he first left before the arrival of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) and later rebuilt his home three separate times during the war years.
Subalasingam has lost both sons — one during the conflict after involvement with the LTTE, and another, a teacher, who disappeared after the war in 2009. He said he had spent large sums of money and approached numerous people in search of answers, but none had arrived.
Until 1987, he said, he had survived by farming onions, beetroot, carrots, cabbage, and tobacco, sending produce as far as Colombo.
He said he feared the Kivul Oya project could erase both cultivated land and regenerated forest relied upon by local families, while pushing wildlife into settlements and worsening the Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC).
“From my youth until now, I haven’t lived in one place for more than 10 years. We had to abandon this house three times since the 1980s,” Subalasingam said.
He added that it was only in the last 15 years that he had been able to remain in one place and farm in relative peace. “We want to spend the rest of our lives in peace and tranquillity. Please don’t take that away,” he lamented.
EIA findings and civil society concerns
The project’s own EIA acknowledges significant consequences alongside projected benefits. It states that around 2,500 hectares of terrestrial habitat will be lost through reservoir inundation and land clearing, including about 1,500 hectares identified as elephant habitat.
The EIA report warns that removing or fragmenting these habitats is likely to worsen the HEC in a region where crop raids and fatal encounters are already a persistent threat. To address this, planners have proposed a dedicated elephant corridor downstream of the dam together with electric fencing.
Several archaeological sites, including ancient monastic and burial locations, are also listed as being potentially affected.
Hydrological impacts include reduced river flow for a 3 km stretch downstream, potentially affecting aquatic species. To mitigate this, the report recommends a continuous environmental release of 0.18 cubic metres per second during dry months.
Forest authorities have also raised concerns, insisting that any clearing of natural forest must be carried out strictly within the law. The EIA concludes that the positive outcomes outweigh the negatives, citing an economic Internal Rate of Return ranging from 14.8% to 16.1%, and recommends that the project proceed provided all mitigation measures are monitored.
Meanwhile, civil society groups remain unconvinced. Following reports of the revival, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has renewed concerns that the project could have far-reaching implications for land rights and ethnic relations. It said fears linked to settlement patterns and demographic change had been raised for years in relation to Mahaweli-linked schemes.
Policymakers’ stance and Govt. pledges
Opposition Tamil parliamentarians continue to challenge the Government’s assurances. Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) Batticaloa District MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam told The Sunday Morning that the scheme reflected a pattern where irrigation benefits under the Mahaweli programme had failed to reach Tamil-speaking communities.
He noted that the Mahaweli Development Authority had been in effect since the 1970s, yet not a single drop of water had reached the north and east for Tamil-speaking people. He argued that instead of a major reservoir, authorities should rehabilitate the minor tanks numbering over 100 located within the proposed zone, which would allow existing residents to cultivate for two seasons.
Rasamanickam warned that local farmers would lose access to these resources if the reservoir were to proceed, as those minor tanks would be submerged. He further alleged that the distribution of benefits would be unequal, claiming the project would overlook 96,000 people to provide water to only 4,000, which he deemed unacceptable.
Separately, ITAK MP Dr. Pathmanathan Sathyalingam raised environmental concerns in Parliament, noting that the EIA revealed ancestral lands would be submerged and a significant part of the Vanni forest would go underwater, risking the destruction of unique bird and animal species.
Sathyalingam further warned that the project could worsen the HEC as animals living in the 13,000-acre forest would be displaced. He criticised the lack of attention to affected communities in Vavuniya North, stating that officials only focused on the area below the tank bund.
The Government, meanwhile, says it recognises public concerns and is seeking to move forward through consultation.
Deputy Minister of Land and Irrigation Aravinda Senarath Vitharana told The Sunday Morning that a District Coordinating Committee meeting had been convened recently to address grievances and clarify misunderstandings.
Vitharana acknowledged that past Mahaweli-linked projects had created suspicion regarding Sinhala settlers but insisted that the Kivul Oya project was structured differently to ensure direct benefits reached everyone.
Regarding farmers without formal title deeds, Vitharana said the Government was exploring ways to provide them with land within the newly developed areas so that they could continue their work. He expressed confidence that tensions could be addressed through transparent planning.
The Deputy Minister added that the Government acknowledged the agitations of the people in the area, saying: “We do not want them to lose their livelihoods or be displaced. We are aware of their concerns. The project will commence while resolving their agitations as well.”
National People’s Power (NPP) Vanni District MP Mylavaganam Jagatheeswaran offered a more cautious assessment, saying that discussions remained at an early stage and public trust would depend on the resolution of compensation and land issues.
He noted that many families stood to lose land in the catchment area and that a finalised plan for relocation would be critical before any broad consensus could emerge.
Attempts by The Sunday Morning to contact the Mahaweli Development Authority were unsuccessful. Calls to telephone numbers listed on its website went unanswered, while officials at the Mullaitivu and Vavuniya District Secretariats requested that Right to Information (RTI) applications be filed for further details.